Many people laugh when I suggest that people connected to the government lied to the public about the events of 9/11. But when I say politicians lie, or members of the Supreme Court lie, or that public officials lie about other matters, the same people nod their heads and agree enthusiastically. Why is that? It has to do with needs. If one determines that they need something, they tend to hold on to it more tightly than something they could do without. This attitude is simple human nature. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (see picture), a person’s first set of needs are the most basic: we all need to breathe, drink water, eat food, etc. If we are dependent (or believe we are dependent) upon someone else to provide these necessities, we would not likely question that person or antagonize them. We could be saying goodbye to our lives! Once a person achieves this first set of needs, this theory tells us, they are able to handle the next set, which is about the security of: one’s person, employment, health, etc. If one does not feel secure about themselves and about their position in society, they will not be able to move up the “ladder” of the hierarchy and make friends or feel self-confidence. “Rocking the boat” and questioning those who provide security, such as agents of our government, jeopardizes one’s ability to become a confident and social person. It may not be the same as being deprived of water, but one who openly doubts those charged with providing security risks social suicide! No wonder a majority of people still trust our government with the responsibility of protecting us from attack, despite overwhelming evidence that the events of 9/11 were a hoax! It is far safer to “settle” for accusing politicians of lying and cheating because there is no fear of retaliation or alienation for espousing these views. Yes, we all understand the advantage of safety: one does not have to lift a finger. Imagine the possibility of afterlife. This idea goes beyond one’s security on the temporary home of Planet Earth. It goes to eternal life. Imagine a deity who records your every thought and action. Imagine your destination after life going favorably in one direction and horribly in another direction. Imagine this deity having control over which way you go. Many of those who are willing to speak out against the actions of those charged with running our government are unwilling to speak up about certain religions that threaten eternal insecurity to those that question the deity. There is something missing in the Maslow’s theory. Somewhere after we get our water and our food, we need to grasp the right to ask questions and to obtain answers. The idea of either trusting our leaders blindly to protect us or to face alienation is not sufficient for any of us to function in a world of deception and lies. That’s my theory. We need choices that reflect our needs, not our fears.

The Republicans Don't Lie, They Just Don't Like Yes or No Questions

I voted Democratic in the recent elections and am something less than thrilled with the new team of Republicans who will take control of the House. As I mentioned in a recent column, I still do not understand what the “Tea Party” stands for. I have my doubts about John Boehner but will try to give him the chance the Republicans still haven’t given Barack Obama.

I turned the TV to “Real Time” with Bill Maher recently and saw a Republican who I don’t think is all that bad and who seems fairly bright. His name is Darrell Issa of California’s 49th House District and he will head the House Oversight Committee starting in January.

Issa, Maher and Fareed Zakaria had an interesting exchange that shows I may want to hold on to my concerns. Here was the gist of their discussion:

Zakaria pointed out that if Congress refuses to extend the Bush tax cuts, they will save about $700 billion. Many Republicans have contended that this will be a tax raise. So be it. It would certainly help us to reduce the debt.

Maher kept asking Issa if he supported the extension of the tax cuts or not. The question was relevant and simple. But Issa never answered it.

Issa responded by saying he wants a “fairer, flatter tax with less loopholes.” It was a typical politician response, except that the election is over!

Zakaria prodded Issa in a way that few in the media seem capable or willing to do. He simply pointed out that cutting out loopholes would lead to a tax increase on someone.

When Issa balked, Zakaria called the talk of “less loopholes” a euphemism. And euphemisms, he said, were really no better than lies.

When the conversation changed to budget cuts, Maher asked Issa where the budget should be reduced, pointing out that a very small percentage of the budget, about 15%, accounts for non-defense discretionary spending.

Issa bravely shifted the conversation to the issue of entitlements, saying that Congress should use a means test for those on unemployment benefits and those on Medicare and Social Security. Maher responded by saying that his ideas meant cutting two popular programs.

Issa used phrases that probably fool the typical voter into thinking that he does not favor tax increases and that he will not cut Medicare or Social Security. Of course, politicians have done this type of double-talk for years and Issa seems pretty good at it.

But if Issa really is among the brightest and most competent of the new Republican team, I simply do not see a whole lot of change ahead of us. Instead, I see the recent election “sweep” by Republicans as a euphemism for “only the names have changed.”

Common complaints about those who run for office are the promises they make and do not keep, their unwillingness to stand for something and their reliance upon negative campaigning, especially through 30-second spot ads on television.

Recent political campaigns have featured promises in which the public has been told by candidates of both major parties what they want to hear.Nixon promised “peace with honor” in Viet Nam, Carter said he “would never lie” to us and George H. W. Bush told us there would be “no new taxes.”

Candidates offering the most appealing promises have tended to win and have had to focus on keeping them.Some promises have been kept and others not.But it hasn’t always been this way.

Robert Kennedy campaigned for president in 1968 by telling audiences what they did not want to hear: to a group of college students, he said he favored removing the deferment that students had from the draft.

Yet he claimed students as one of his biggest constituencies on election day.

Advisors told Robert Kennedy not to speak to a mostly black audience in Indianapolis after it was revealed that a white man was accused of murdering Martin Luther King, Jr.They told him the crowd could form into a mob and injure or even kill him and others present.

Yet he gave the speech, anyway.Not only did no one harm him, but on that fateful day, Indianapolis was the only major city in the whole United States that did not have rioting.

His opponents used what was then a relatively new forum with which to campaign, television advertising.But Robert Kennedy did not like this approach because he could not articulate the ideas that he based his campaign upon, such as ending the United States involvement in Viet Nam, reducing poverty and promoting civil rights for all.

So he frequently used 30-minute, rather than 30-second advertisements.They worked to help him to detail and clarify his positions and how he would lead the United States if elected.

Kennedy’s campaign of 1968 should inspire us because he chose to run his campaign by what he believed was right, regardless of the consequences.His willingness to do the unpopular and even the unthinkable showed a solid grasp of self-knowledge and gave the voters confidence of his integrity to principle had he avoided the assassin’s bullet and won election.